At the time, XYZ CEO Daniel Negari said “CentralNic is updating RNV providers to ensure there is stability in the RNV process and do our best to stop fraudulent registrations and abuse. We remain committed to a zero tolerance policy on abuse and I think we are on the right track to maintain that.”

Nearly three months later, .xyz domains still aren’t available through Chinese domain registrars. I reached out to Negari to ask what’s going on. He released this statement to Domain Name Wire:

We received approval from ICANN for a new RNV solution. We are going through the contract amendment process now and will be live in China again after that.

As a leading registry operator, we put compliance with our registry agreement and international laws as a top priority, which is why we have been working with CentralNic and ICANN to operate a compliant RNV solution in China. My understanding is that XYZ is one of the few registries that is operating under 100% clear approvals, while many others are in a grey zone or maybe be operating without any ICANN approvals at all.

Comments

Andrew, I do not have a horse in this particular race, but as the CEO of the services agency which has achieved more Chinese approvals for foreign registries than any other, I feel duty bound to support the domain industry by clarifying several inaccuracies or misunderstandings that Mr Negari may have advanced in his statement to you.

1. “We received approval from ICANN for a new RNV solution. We are going through the contract amendment process now and will be live in China again after that. ”

There is no requirement from any Chinese regulator, regulation, law or convention that any kind of ICANN “approval” for a Real Name Verification “solution” is necessary. China regulates its internet without regard to any non-Chinese government or NGO, let alone ICANN.

2. “We are going through the contract amendment process now…”

This statement implies that the ICANN contract (the RA) is being amended. No such amendment is required to be compliant with Chinese RNV or any other relevant Chinese regulation.

3. “…and will be live in China again after that.”

Like most in the domain industry, we hope that .XYZ is indeed successful, however linking being “live in China” to some kind of RA amendment isn’t logical.

4. “As a leading registry operator, we put compliance with our registry agreement and international laws as a top priority, which is why we have been working with CentralNic and ICANN to operate a compliant RNV solution in China.”

MIIT withdrew .XYZ’s approval certificate for reasons entirely other than “compliance with [.XYZ]’s registry agreement” or “compliance with international laws”. It is good to know that .XYZ sets such best practices as “top priority”, but these factors are irrelevant as regards being compliant with Chinese regulations.

As these factors are not relevant to Chinese compliance, it is not accurate to name these factors as the “why” .XYZ has been “working with CentralNic and ICANN to operate a compliant RNS solution in China.”

For the avoidance of doubt, it is fair to note that CentralNic has done nothing wrong in China (the contrary, actually).

5. “My understanding is that XYZ is one of the few registries that is operating under 100% clear approvals, while many others are in a grey zone or maybe be operating without any ICANN approvals at all.”

It is 100% incorrect to accuse the other foreign registries which are fully compliant with Chinese regulations (and remain on sale in China today) as being in a “grey zone” or “operating without any ICANN approvals at all.”

I suspect that those registries would prefer to not be called out by Mr Negari as operating in a “grey zone” or “operating without any ICANN approvals at all.”

Hope these comments have clarified the actuality of Chinese TLD approvals.

Hi,
What I feel about .xyz domains is that they were given for minimal price on several websites as a promotional offer. Due to which if you search even not so common words, you will not find them available. Either they are booked or dropped.
Regards.

Very thoughtful and articulately said Simon. It’s time the industry start setting standards and calling out inaccuracies when we see them.

.XYZ has made statements in the past that have been considered false by many reputable companies. The actions that led .XYZ to be kicked off of NameCheap, and all the of the Chinese registrars are not the fault of other registries, regulators or even the registrars. There is only one company, and one individual who has done things that have resulted in these actions being taken. It would be nice if this could be reported on more accurately.

Looks to me that ICANN finally realized that some registries were incorporating new systems into their registry services to comply with these Chinese laws and ICANN is only now starting to enforce their right to approve registry service changes. Starting with this assumption, most of Simon’s points get reconciled with XYZ’s statements.

XYZ would not voluntarily file for a registry service change. They would only do it if ICANN required it. This means ICANN is now taking the position that the registry service evaluation process is required for anyone operating in China — since operating in China necessarily requires implementing unique services like real name verification. This makes sense because ICANN is supposed to be approve any change to registry services. We will find out soon. If I’m right, either a bunch of registries will start filing for these or they will start fighting with ICANN over this. If nothing ever comes of this, I’m wrong.

I have no clue what’s going on with the Chinese end of this.

That said, I don’t get why Simon thinks it so odd that China would want to see an registry agreement amendment. Perhaps they never have in the past, but if I were China and I were approving registries, and if I found out that ICANN was starting to require registry service changes for the registry services necessary to operate in China, then I would start to require registired to complete a registry service change requests before giving approval to operate in Chine. This would require an open line of communication between China and ICANN. I would expect there to be one.